By
SHANTARAM BHALCHANDRA DEO
JAINA CULTURAL RESEARCH SOCIETY
BANARAS 5 (INDIA)
1960.
Being a course of three
lectures delivered before
THE JAINA CULTURAL
RESEARCH SOCIETY
(BANARAS)
on 9th, 10th & 11th
Nov. 1959
By
SHANTARAM BHALCHANDRA DEO,
M.A., Ph.D.
Reader in Ancient Indian
History, Department of Archaeology and Ancient Indian History University of
Poona
Deccan College
Post-Graduate and Research Institute,
Poona
Poona.
1960
First Edition, 750
copies
June, 1960.
Price Rs. 20
Printed at the Sangam
Press Private Ltd. Poona, by M. H. Patwardhan,
and published by Pandit
Dalsukhbhai Malwaniya, Hony. Secretary, Jaina Cultural Research Society,
Banaras, 5.
The Author is indebted
to the Secretary and Members of
THE JAINA CULTURAL
RESEARCH SOCIETY, BANARAS,
For sponsoring and
printing these lectures.
The following lectures
were the outcome of the suggestions by Dr. H. D. Sankalla, Dr. V. S. Agrawal
and Shri Dalsukhbhai Malwania. It was because of their encouragement and
goodwill that I thought of presenting the material on Jain monastic
jurisprudence in a more homogeneous and compact form.
I am quite conscious of
the fact that the core of these lectures is embedded in my 'History of Jaina
Monastery from Inscriptions and Literature'.
Yet the readers will readily agree that the information is systematized and
augmented. This forms the nucleus of the complete subject-wise codification of
the rules of Jaina monastic conduct, the transgressions and the punishments,
which is already under preparation.
Grateful thanks are due
to Drs. S. M. Katre and A. M. Ghatave and Shri G. B. Panse for valuable
suggestions.
20, May '60,
Deccan College,
Poona 6.
S. B. DEO.
To
For his manifold
courtesies
Though engaged in
various activities, Dr. S. B. Deo was kind enough to spare some time to come to
Banaras and deliver three lectures on 'Jain Monastic Jurisprudence' on the
invitation of Jain Cultural Research Society. These lectures were delivered in
the College of Indology, Banaras Hindu University, under the chairmanship of
Dr. V. S. Agrawala on the 9th, 10th and 11th November, 1959. I have great
pleasure in publishing these lectures so soon, and for that I have to thank Dr.
Deo for his hearty cooperation. I have also to thank Dr. V. S. Agrawala for his
kindly consenting to preside over the lectures. I am very much grateful to Dr.
R. B. Pandey, Principal, College of Indology, who gave us all the facilities
for the lectures in the College of Indology.
DALSUKH
MALVANIA,
Secretary,
Jain Cultural Research
Society.
Ahmedabad,
28-4-1960.
1. THE BACKGROUND TO
MONASTIC JURISPRUDENCE. .
2. CUSTODIANS OF
MONASTIC JURISPRUDENCE..
3. LAWS OF JURISPRUDENCE
AND THEIR WORKING
4. TRANSGRESSIONS AND
PUNISHMENTS
5. BIBLIOGRAPHY AND
INDEX
I. Preamble.
II. Survey of Jaina
Research.
III. The Canon.
IV. Jurisprudence:
Source texts for it.
V. The Spirit of Monastic Rules
VI.. Meaning of Transgressions and Exceptions.
I am indeed grateful to
you for the honor you have done me in inviting me to place before such a
distinguished gathering my views regarding Jaina monastic jurisprudence. I am
quite conscious of the fact that I happen to be as yet a novice in the field of
Jainology when compared to the stalwarts in the field. I would, however, not
offer an apology on that account. On the contrary, taking inspiration from the
work of the giants in the field, I would try to follow their footsteps with
youthful confidence.
II
Survey of Jaina Research
You are all aware that
the days when Jainism was taken to be an offshoot of Brahmans are a thing of
the past—and rightly so. For in recent years, especially during the last fifty
years, immense literature pertaining to Jainology has been brought to light.
However, the first gleanings of Jainism in English came as early as 1809' when
Col. Mackenzie gave us "The Account
of the Jainas". This was followed by a couple of others, which,
however, do not deserve any serious notice at all. It took nearly
three-quarters of a century after Mackenzie, when Baler gave us his masterly
presentation of "Indische Sekte den
Jainas" in 1887. This seems to have opened up a new interest in Jaina
studies and in the following decade or so critical editions of the canonical
texts of the Jaina Svetambaras Agama were brought out.
The opening up of the present century saw the development
of scholarly interest in Jainology among foreign and Indian scholars. The
researches were more homogeneous and planned rather than sporadic. Unlike the
early attempts of the previous century as evidenced by the edition of Kalpasutra by Stevenson (1848), the
fragments of the Bhagavati by Weber
(1886) and the German rendering of the Abhidhana-Cintamani
by Bothlingk (1847), the publications during our present century appear to
be more copious and systematic. Save for the biased account by Mrs. Stevenson
(1915) who could not find and understand the heart of Jainism, the other works
pertaining to Jainology were masterly, the most brilliant amongst them being "Die Lehre der Jainas" by
Schuring (1935) .
The above account need
not be taken to emphasize that work pertaining to Jainism was solely restricted
to foreign scholars only. Side by side, in India itself a galaxy of scholars
contributed to the study of Jainism. For along with Jacobi, Hertel, Hoernle,
Schubring, Glasenapp, Guerinot, Alsdore
Leurann, Weber Basham, and Charpentier, Dr. Upadhyle, P. L. Vaidya, Muni
Jinavijaya, Pt. Sukhalalji, K. P. Jain, Prof. Kapadia, Dr. Hiralal Jaini, Pt.
Nathu Ram Premi—to mention only a few amongst the many—have been solely
responsible for making available to the world of scholars a mine of information
regarding Jainism. Institutions like the Agamodaya Samiti, the Manikchandra Digambaras Jaina Granthamala, the
Devendrakirti Granthamala, the Singhi Jaina Granthamala, and others have been
helpful in sponsoring critical editions of several Jaina texts, and thus have
rightly earned the gratitude of scholars.
Besides the texts and
treatises, several pattavalis and
thousands of epigraphs have been brought to light during the last fifty years,
as a result of which the picture of the economic, religious, social and
cultural development of Jainism is emerging in clearer form. It is needless to
list the persons and the institutions that have been responsible for this, for
these are well known.
Jainism offers a rich
field for new research in yet one more field; and that is the vast mass of
manuscripts which lie deposited in scores of Jaina Bhandaras of all sects. I had the privilege of visiting quite a few
of these and I was amazed at this sealed wealth. The Bhandaras have been a
peculiar institution of signal importance. It is really remarkable how several
of these have been fed and fostered with devotion and understanding by the
Jaina laity.
III
The foregoing summary
would at once convince one of the immense work that has been done and the much
more that yet remains to be done. However, that which has been done is helpful,
if not enough, in studying the Jaina monastic institution, its day to day
working and the rules and discipline that governed such daily routine, which
forms the topic of these lectures.
In the light of this
theme it will at once be agreed that the sole basis for the building up of the
structure of Jaina monastic jurisprudence is the canon as acknowledged by the Svetambaras and the Angas, Angabhahyas and Anuyogas
of the Digambaras.
Before entering into a
detailed discussion of the sources for Jaina monastic jurisprudence—both of the
Svetambaras and the Digambaras—it would be worthwhile to
note a few points regarding the canonical texts, their development and nature.
It is needless to go into the controversy regarding the
canon. It is well known that the Digambaras
do not acknowledge the texts of the canon as approved by the Svetambaras. As is well known the story
of the canon of the Svetambaras is
the story of redaction’s, collections and loss. The Council of Pataliputra of
Mauryan times, another of Mathura of about the 4th Century AD and those at
Valabhi of the 5th and 6th Century A.D. were responsible for the collection and
redaction of the canonical texts. It is not unnatural if during such a long
period some texts, especially the Puvvas were
lost for good. From a historical point of view, it is not possible to say what
texts formed the canon at the Pataliputra Council and what was the final form
at the Valabhi Council. Thus a historical treatment of the development of the
canon is not practicable. This hampers a great deal in studying the various
facets, including that of monastic jurisprudence, of Jainism. What remains
ultimately, in a broad sense, is the picture of Jainism up to the 6th century
A.D. and that succeeding it.
Yet one more factor may
be noted regarding the Svetambaras
canon. Apart from the story of various councils and redaction’s, the number of
texts to be included in the Agama has
been a matter of fluctuations. Whereas the standard list comprises forty-six
texts grouped into Anga, uvangas, painnas
cheyasuttas, - mulasuttas and two miscellaneous texts, some scholars give a
list of as many as eighty-six texts comprising the canon. (Kapadia, Canonical Lit. of the Jainas, p. 58.)
Thus, leek of disciplined historicity and precision of number prove a major
stumbling block in dealing with the development of Jaina monastic
jurisprudence, the laws of which are solely and basically incorporated in the
canonical texts.
Well, this is the nature
of the evidence coming from the Svetambaras
sources. As for the Digambaras, as
noted before, they disown the canon as enunciated by the Svetambaras, and advocate the view that the canon was lost. It is
irrelevant for us here to discuss the stories and circumstances connected with
this matter; moreover they are well known. The Digambaras, on the other hand, advocate a canon comprising Angus, angabahiras, anuyogas, the last
being divided into four subdivisions. It may be pointed out that the texts
incorporated into these groups cover a wide range of period. For instance, the
first category e.g. the Angus contain
some texts which are akin to those of the Svetambaras,
as for instance, the Nayadhammakahao. The
second group comprises texts like Dasaveyaliya,
Uttarajjhyayana and Kappa-vavahara whose
names are familiar in the Svetambaras
canon though their grouping is different. The third group of annyogas contains texts belonging to
scholars like Kundakunda (1st century
A.D.), Umasvati, Vattakera and Samantabhadra
(8th century A.D.). It will at once be realized that the Digambaras canon comprises texts of widely different periods,
though it is not possible to assign each and every text in it to a definite
date.
The upshot of the whole
matter may be summarized now. We have seen that the canon of the Svetambaras was finally redacted at the
second council of Valabhi in about
the 6th century A.D. We have also seen that the Digambaras disown this canon and instead propose a list of texts
grouped under different categories. Even then, some of the names of the texts
of the canon of both agree. Moreover, the contents of some, e.g. Mulacara and Dasaveyaliya agree in some cases ad verbum. The Angas are
held in high esteem by both. Many of the details of monastic life and
jurisprudence—as will be seen later on—tally well in the texts of the Digambaras and the Svetambaras. And lastly, several of the authors like Umasvati, Siddhasena Divakara, and others who have contributed to the making up of Jaina
literature, are respected by both these sects.
These, in short, are the
salient features of the nature of evidence at hand for the proper understanding
of Jaina monastic jurisprudence. The very points of similarity, as noted above,
do not imply a wide divergence in the nature of material for the study of
jurisprudence. It would thus be possible to study monastic jurisprudence of the
Jainas as a whole without any sectarian approach. The following pages,
therefore, attempt to present the overall picture of the working of the
internal organizational discipline of Jaina monastery. The picture that will
emerge is hoped to be completely non-sectarian and unbiased. The author is
fully conscious of the fact that the texts available to him were mainly of the Svetambaras group. Yet the details
available have been checked from the Digambaras
texts as well, and wherever differences occur, they have been stated as
dispassionately as possible. I stand before you, not as a judge, but as one who
believe in paying homage to Jainism through its dispassionate study.
IV
Jurisprudence: source texts for it
Having seen the nature
of the canon and after expressing the nature of our approach, let us now take a
review of the actual texts that contribute most of the material for the study
of Jaina monastic jurisprudence.
As has already been
noted, the canonical texts form the core of the material for the study of Jaina
jurisprudence. Yet all the texts are not useful for this purpose. For our
purpose the most invaluable group of texts is that which goes under the name of
the 'cheyasuttas' of the Svetambaras Jaina canon and those
grouped under 'carananuyoga' by the Digambaras.
As is well known,
the cheyasuttas comprise six texts as
follows:
( 1 ) Nisihasutta
(2) Mahanistha sutta
(3) Vavahara sutta
(4) Dasasayakkhandha (or Ayaradasao)
(5) Kappasutta (or Brhatkalpa), and
(6) Pancakappa (or Jiyakappa).
Of these six, the Dash,
Kappa and Vavahara seem to be
closely related to one another in matter and treatment. They deal with various
transgressions and the punishments prescribed for these, in a very summary
fashion. These texts by themselves do not give any other background leading to
the formulation of the code of discipline. Neither do they give any information
as to the procedure of implementing a punishment against a transgressor. For
these details we have to depend solely on the cunnis and Bhasas going
with these which furnish us with the actual working of monadic, jurisprudence
in Jaina church.
Another point worth
notice regarding these texts is that their date is uncertain. Though the
tradition holds that Bhadrabahu, the sixth pontiff after Lord Mahavira was
responsible for the editing of these three texts on the basis of the
information given in the ninth Puvva
(Rsimandalastotra, 166), the evidence is inconclusive, for we do not know
what items contributed to make the ninth Puvva.
Moreover, it is well known that
there were more that one Bhadrabahu known to the Jaina church history. However,
as the case stands, we are not in a position to look beyond the tradition in
which case we have to assign these texts to 4th/3rd century B.C. as this
particular Bhadrabahu is said to have flourished a couple of centuries after
Mahavira, —the exact date of his death being 170 years after the Nirvana of Mahavira.
The date of Nisihasutta is again a problem and it is
not possible to be dogmatic about it. However, there is a remarkable similarity
between this text and the Vavahara sutta as
to the forms of punishment and the categories of transgressions. Emphasizing
the similarity between Nisiha and the
Culas of Ayarangasutta, Winternitz opines that both these texts probably had
a common source of origin. (Winterniz, Hil,
pp.464-65).
As to the Mahanisiha, we are on still more
unstable grounds. The nature of the language and the mention of Tantric practices and non-canonical
texts in this work are perplexing. On the strength of these points, Winternitz
puts it to a period later than that of Panda
and Oha Nijjuttis and goes to the
extent of questioning its position as a text of the canon.
One point regarding Dasasuyakhhandah
referred to: above, may be worthwhile mention. Here in this text is a
portion designated as the 'samayari' dealing
with the rules of rain-retreat etc. This has been attributed to Bhadrabahu. Yet
when we find references to persons and church units posterior to Bhadrabahu, we
have to conclude that only the-portion of 'samayari'
might be attributed to Bhadrabahu, while the rest may be a later addition.
Pancakappa is not extant now. So nothing can be said about it. The Jiyakappa, which
replaces it, has been attributed to Jinabhadra who is said to have flourished
in about the 6th century A.D. or a little prior to that. (Information kindly supplied by Dr. Upadhye. It is thus clear that Jiyakappa cannot be equated with other texts in chronology.
Even though basically
most of the information regarding monastic jurisprudence can be culled from
these texts, it does not mean that these are the sole repositories of such
information. For instance, the Thanangasutta
also mentions various payachittas and
some transgressions. The Pined and
the Oha-Nijjuttis, which are sometime
grouped with the cheyasuttas, give
abundant information regarding daily monastic life and the transgressions
connected with the requisites of a monk, whereas the rules governing the
formation of a unit of monks called the Gauche
and the working of it are incorporated in the Gacchayara Painnaya.
Besides these texts of
the canon itself, the commentary literature is of immense help in the study of
Jaina monastic jurisprudence. For instance the chunnis and the Bhasas provide
the details about the formulation of rules of monastic conduct, their working,
the exceptions, and the actual process of the enactment of procedure of dealing
-with a transgressor, so on and so forth. In this regard the Nisihacunni, the Brihatkalpa-bhasya - sutra and the Jiyakappa and its commentary prove to be invaluable. These
commentaries are so indispensable that without these it is not possible to go
to the core of the working of monastic jurisprudence. Besides providing
information in amplification of the rules of monastic discipline, these texts
give stories and incidents which throw a great deal of light on the then
existing social conditions under which the Jaina monk had to live and preserve
the purity of monastic standards.
This much about the Svetambaras
texts. Coming to the Digambaras
texts, we-have to depend chiefly on the texts grouped under the head 'carananuyoga'. Of these, the Mulacara of Vattakera belonging to about
the beginning of the Christian era is invaluable as it gives many details of
monastic life and the prayascittas.
Before entering into the
details Of monastic jurisprudence, it may be worthwhile to- summarize the main
characteristics of the nature of evidence for the study of the subject. We have
already seen that the texts contributing to such a study cover a very wide
period. We have, therefore, to present the picture of Jaina monastery as a
whole rather than treat it on historical principle. Besides this aspect, some
texts are such that they incorporate sometimes older and later strata of
contents, which make the historical treatment practically impossible, unless
critically edited editions are forthcoming.
Secondly, as will be
further amplified later on, the Digambaras
and Svetambaras texts do not differ
much in the treatment and working of monastic jurisprudence. For instance, the
list of prayascittas is more or less
the same, save two changes. The Digambaras
have 'parihara' and 'saddhana' replacing 'anavatthappa' and 'paranciya' as given in the Svetambaras
Cheyasuttas. The rest of the details
do not basically differ.
Well, we have so far
seen very briskly the history of research in Jainology, the nature and
controversy regarding the canon and lastly the nature of the source-texts for
the study of Jaina monastic jurisprudence. The survey has been very brief, as
we have yet to cover the major field that lies ahead of us.
The Spirit of Monastic Rules
We have now to see how
the rules of monastic conduct were formulated, their basic conceptions and the
features and considerations that underlay the making up of such
rules. These rules are
numerous and cover so many details for which the Jainas seem to have a peculiar
flair.
The rules, as remarked above, are numerous indeed. They
pertain to initiation, confirmation, church units, relations with the laity,
nuns, those who belonged to other sects, touring and residence, begging of
food, donors, study, clothing and nudity, requisites like pidha-phalaga- sejja-samtharaga, rules regarding daily routine,
study or sojjhaya, penance, fasting
and bodily mortification, death and death-rites and moral discipline.
It is not the purpose of
these lectures to detail out here all the rules. I would request the persons
interested to refer to my book "History
of Jaina Monarchism" for the details of such rules. Here we are
concerned with the basic considerations that were taken into consideration in
the framing of these.
A survey of Jaina
monarchism would reveal that all the rules of monastic conduct seem to
originate from the five great vows (panda
mahavvayas) that were expected of every Jaina monk. The five great vows are
Ahinsa (savvao panaivayao veramanam),
sacca (savvao musavayao veramanam), asteya (savvao adinnadanao veramanam),
apariggaho (savvao pariggahao veramanam) and bambhacera (savvao mehunao veramanam). These form the basis of
every field of Jaina monastic conduct. Even the sixth vow, as given in the Dasaveyaliya and consisting of the
abstinence from taking food at night (savvao
raibhoyanao veramanam) is apparently the corollary of the first vow.
These five vows were to
be followed in the thrice threefold way, inasmuch as, the monk was not to
transgress these himself, or make some other to transgress these or consent to
somebody else transgressing these, either mentally (manna), vocally (vaena) or
bodily (kana). Thus the following of
these basic vows which comprised the whole fabric of Jaina monastic life led to
the flowering up of numerous rules and conventions which have survived to this
day.
As remarked above, these
numerous rules and regulations arose out of the necessity of the proper
following of these great vows. And yet the network of the mass of rules based
on these basic vows arose also out of the considerations of human psychology
and its adjustment to environment. It may not be an exaggeration to say that
those who framed the rules of monastic conduct were keen observers of the
working of human mind in relation to the society at large. Accordingly, the
rules were so framed as to preserve the utmost sanctity and purity of monk-life
without grossly violating the existing social etiquette. It will not be out of
place here to amplify the statement. Take for instance the famous forty-six
faults to be avoided by a monk in the course of his begging round. The Pinda and the Oha-Nijjuttis furnish us with most convincing episodes that lay at
the back of these elaborate rules.
Take for instance, the
fault pertaining to ‘chaddiya’, which
disallows a monk to accept food, which has been so carelessly served that some
portion of it falls on the ground. Apart from the hygienic point of view, the
makers of this rule seem to foresee a lot of circumstances, which might lead a
monk into trouble. The story is told of a Jaina monk called Dharmaghosa who refused to accept alms
at the house of a minister Varattaka
whose wife came out in such a way that part of the food to be offered as alms
fell on the ground. Naturally Dharmaghosa did not accept such alms much to the
surprise of the minister who was watching from a distance. He remained, where
he was and decided to see what would happen further within a short time, flies
settled on the drop of soup. The flies were attacked by spiders that in turn
were: subjected to an onslaught by the chameleons. Soon the cats attacked the
latter, while the dogs fell upon the cats. Out of the fight between the dogs
arose the quarrel between their owners, which finally led to great excitement!
To many of us the contents of the story may appear farfetched and artificial,
yet the spirit of it is really remarkable. The monk is to foresee things and
extricate himself from such worldly bickering. (Pindanijutti, 623-25).
Another instance can be
had in the formation of the rule, which forbids a monk to accept food from the
daughter of his maternal uncle. On the face of it one might wonder why this
rule was enforced. But the commentator rightly points out that the violation of
this rule might lead to the affinity between the monk and the cousin sister
which may irritate the husband of the lady. The rule becomes significant when
we take into consideration the fact that the daughter of the maternal uncle
often married her cousin brother. In view of this, the husband of the lady
might suspect intimacy between the monk-brother and his wife, which might also
lead to trouble for all. Here is, therefore, an excellent example of the
formulation of monastic rules in consonance with social practices. It would
thus be clear that though purity—mental and physical— was at the basis of
monastic rules, other factors also were taken due cognizance of.
Such illustrations can
be had even in other facets of monastic life. Take for instance the rules
regarding study. The Uttarajjhayana
(XXVI, 12) clearly states that the first and the fourth porisi of the day should be utilized for
study by the monk. Yet in abnormal circumstances study was not to be done. For
instance, phenomena like the fall of meteors (ukkavaya), thunder of supernatural beings in the sky (nigghate), the appearance of goblins in
the sky (jakkhalitte), eclipses of
the moon and the sun (candovarate,
surovarate)—all of these being occasions of ill omen in the mind of the
people at large, were unfit for study. Besides this, some occasions which
involved political tension like the death of a king or a prominent person (rayavugghahae) also were deemed unfit
for study. (Thananga, p. 476b; ayar. II, 1, 3, 9: pp. 96-97, Nis. XIX, 8-12). The
considerations behind these were both psychological and political, if one may
be allowed to infer. Psychological in the sense that such times are abnormal
and are associated with excitement and tension-which are not conducive to
concentration in study: Secondly, if people see monks engaged in study at such
a time, they were likely to take it as a sign of indifference towards the
deceased personality, which was likely to arouse their frenzy. These rules,
therefore, reveal knowledge of social psychology coupled with the needs of
monastic life.
Similar was the case
regarding the selection of a proper residence. Apart from the non-acceptance of
notorious places, the reasons for which are based on commonsense, the Jaina
texts hold that too much extensive or too small a residence was not to be
accepted by a monk. An extensive lodging was normally the resort of indifferent
elements in the society like guards, beggars (karpatika) and unmarried males and females (vantha). The very presence of such people was likely to disturb a
monk in his daily routine of study as also his answering the normal calls of
nature for which he would have to go to a distant place which might lead to hinsa. If he suppressed such calls, then
he was likely to fall ill. Then at night, if he tried to find out his own place
or his requisites and in doing so happened to touch the bodies of other persons
mentioned above, these were likely to take him to be an eunuch or a thief or a
person having an appointment with his beloved. This would definitely lead to
trouble. Moreover, if the monk happened to be healthy, he was likely to be
kidnapped by women and eunuchs, in which case it was not possible for him to
get help. (Oha. N. 21724). On the
other hand, too small a residence left meager space for moving about which was
likely to lead to quarrel by others and breaking up of requisites. Such rules,
therefore, display the deep foresight in judging the possibilities, in knowing
the nature of the bad elements in the society and last but not the least the
utmost precaution in maintaining the puritanical rigor of monastic life.
Besides the purely ethical basis of the structure of
Jaina monastic rules, other considerations were also there. For instance, take
the normal rule of not initiating a boy under eight. This is found in the Thanangasutta (p. 164b). However, by the
time of Nisihacunni we find that six
types of children could be initiated.
uvsante vi mhakule nranteevagge vi sanrri
sejjatre
ajja karanrjate anrunrata balpvvajja
-
niseehchunrri
For our discussion here, two categories are worth notice.
First is that of 'karanajata'. In
explanation of this, the commentary says:
'karanrjate ti kul-ganr-sanghkajje annmmi va
gcchadite kajje 'sachivo' mantee so bhanrejja - "aham vo tujjham imam kajjam karemi, jaee me imam balam
alakkhanram
moolnrkkhatiyam, va pvvaveh," tahe
pavvavejjnra.
-
(tritya vibhag, pri. 236)
Here is, therefore, a clear instance of the practical
foresight of the Jaina church, so characteristic of its later stage of
development. If, therefore, the church or the Gana or the sampha was
likely to be benefited by such an initiation, then, there was found to be no
harm in allowing entry to such a child, which normally could not be permitted.
Similar was the case regarding an eunuch who was not normally to be initiated.
But if he were to be in the good books of a king or was one who was an expert
physician or able to manage the well-being of the gaccha in cases of royal disfavor, then such an eunuch could be
allowed entry to the fold. (Brhatkalpa
bhasya V, 517374.) In these cases it is fairly apparent that the church
took quite a practical view of the situation and avoided incurring the
displeasure of the royal power. On the other hand, refusal to initiate a person
who has been inimical to the king (rayavagari)
or one who is a dasa (Nisihacunni, Vol.
III, pp. 261-64) shows in the case of the former, avoidance of royal trouble
and the disengagement from political affairs, and in the case of the latter the
failure of the church to violate the bonds of slavery current in the society.
On the other hand, the
liberal humanitarian and reasonable attitude of the church in the formulation
of rules and their exceptions is evidenced in the case of the child of a raped
nun. Such a nun was kept in the monastery was well looked after, was fed by
co-nuns and when well advanced in pregnancy was handed over to a devoted
layman. All her duties as a nun were suspended till her child sucked her; even
her child could be initiated. The most remarkable aspect was that those who
teased or condemned her were compelled to undergo expiatory punishment. (Brh. kalp. Bha., 4129-46). For this
liberalism and sense of realism, the masters of the organization deserve
praise.
Meaning! of Transgressions and Exceptions
From the discussion of
the structure of monastic rules, their basic ethics, the principles underlying
their formulations and the deviations from these, it will be clear that the
rules of monastic conduct of the Jainas were formulated as a blending of
monastic purity as a major part with the reading of and adjustment with social
etiquette and traditions. Thus though in a major part, they were quite rigid,
yet they could be elastic as well.
The question arises as
to how the exceptions are to be interpreted and under what circumstances are
they to be resorted to? Simultaneously we have to make clear the difference
between a transgression (aiyara) and
the practice of exception (apavaya). It
will be readily accepted that it would be incorrect to resort to 'apavaya.'
often, as also not to resort to it under any circumstances. Extremes in both
are wrong. The real danger lies here. A lax monk would like to resort to
exceptions often, whereas a die-hard puritan would go to the extent of
accepting death rather than resort to exceptions. What is needed is the
relative evaluation of the circumstances under which one happens to be, and the
clear-cut understanding of the acceptance or non-acceptance of the exceptions
to a general rule.
Upadhyaya Amara
Muni in his Hindi preface to Nisihasutta has dealt with this problem in a
masterly ways. The gist of it being relevant to our problem may be summarized
for the proper understanding of the rules of Jaina -monastic jurisprudence.
First and the foremost point is that a person not well-
versed in monastic conduct (agiyattha) has
no right to decide whether a particular behavior or reaction to circumstances
can be adopted as an exception or 'apavada'.
The decision as to the judging of an exception to a rule and the
consequences related to it were the sole responsibility of a senior who was
well-versed and experienced (giyattha.). This
practice thus checked the tendency of a lax monk to resort to exceptions for
his own convenience.
Secondly, even in the
case of well-behaved monks, resort to exceptions was favored in abnormal
circumstances, for if otherwise he died, no question remained about
self-control.
savvtth sanjmam, sanjmao appanrmev rakkhija
muchei eivayao, punro visohee na yavirei -46
sanjmheum deho dharijjei so kyo u tadbhave
sanjam phainimitam, dehparipalanra ittha -47
-ohnrijjuti
These verses clearly
tell us that a person should Pursue Self-control by all means. If it, however,
means death for him in abnormal circumstances, then one should protect oneself,
even if it means a deviation from self-control. A monk who protects his life by
resorting to exceptions is not guilty of transgression, if his mind is pure.
Moreover, by remaining alive he can undergo expiatory punishment for such a
transgression. For the proper following of self-control, the protection of the
body is essential.
The author referred to
above puts the whole argument in a nutshell when he says—
mool men jain prampara ko bahye drishyman
vidhi-vidhano ka utna agrh hai. sadhak na keval utsarg ke liye hai. veh donon
ke liye hai, aur na keval upvad ke liye hai.
This, then, is the
spirit of Jaina monarchism and the rules of discipline that guide it.
Therefore, if in the following of such rules, one has to resort to exceptions,
One should do it out of extreme necessity of protecting the body, which becomes
the vehicle in attaining the ideal of self-control. Thus for the proper
carrying out of self-control one should resort to exceptions. The resort to
exceptions for any other reason than that of self-control amounts to deliberate
transgression. Therefore the circumstances under which a person resorts to
exception and the aim for which it is done are the main pillars over which the
edifice of monastic jurisprudence has been erected by the Jaina church.
I. Introduction.
II. The Custodians of
Monastic Discipline: The Hierarchy.
III. The Problems of
Seniority and Succession.
IV. The Units or Church
Groups.
Introduction
We have so far surveyed
the preliminary field for the study of Jaina monastic jurisprudence. We have
seen the nature of the canon, the controversy about it, the texts essential for
the study of the topic in hand, the spirit which underlies the formulation of
rules of monastic conduct and -the nature and meaning of transgressions and
exceptions.
We now get into the core
of the subject and see the nature of the principle prayascittas, the custodians and judges of monastic conduct or the
hierarchy, and the rules regarding their qualifications.
II
The
Custodians of Monastic Discipline: The Hierarchy
While dealing with the
nature and meaning of transgression and exception, it was made clear that only
a person who was a giyattha
(gitartha) or well-versed in monastic discipline could be taken to be the best
judge in deciding whether a particular transgression was committed or
otherwise.
Naturally the question
arises here as to who the person or persons were, who were so authorized by
virtue of their disciplined mode of life and seniority to act as custodians and
judges of the rules of monastic jurisprudence. What were the essential
qualifications for such persons? What were the rules about seniority? To what
factors was it related? The answers to all these questions will unfold the
nature of the Jaina church hierarchy, the various units and their
inter-relation.
Candidates fit for monastic life:
Let us begin at the
beginning and see which persons were fit for entry to the rigors and discipline
of monk life. The Thanangasutta ( p. 146b) gives a list of twenty persons who
were not allowed to enter the order. The list as it stands is based on
commonsense as also considerations, which avoided the entanglement of the
church into non-monastic affairs. For instance, rules which barred the entry of
persons such as eunuchs, very old persons, children under eight, the sick,
robbers, madmen, pregnant women etc., are obviously based on practical
commonsense as these persons are likely to be a nuisance to the smooth working
of monastic discipline. On the other hand, a person who was the declared enemy
of a king (rayavagari), a slave (dasa), a person in debt (anatta), an attendant (obaddha), a kidnapped person (sehanipphediya) and a servant, were
disallowed to enter monk-life for the obvious reason that their entry was bound
to be embarrassing in political, social and other fields which naturally fell
beyond the ambit of monarchism. It may be noted that this list of persons not
fit for entry to monkshood or nun-hood is identical for the Svetambaras and the Digambaras. (Jain, C. R., Sannyasa
Dharma, pp. 24-25.)
The Hierarchy:
A person having entered
monkshood remained as one under probation till he was confirmed ('uvatthaviya' Than. p. 240a). Such a seha,
antes or samanera had to prove himself worthy of monk-life and had to show
implicit obedience to his senior. The period of probation depended on his
behavior and his senior's opinion regarding it. This period lasted either for
six or four months or even for one week.
The Thananga refers to
four categories of antevasins based
on their initiation and confirmation by one and the same or other acarya.
The next to be mentioned is the Thera. He was elder Let us begin at the beginning and see what
persons to others both in age as well as in standing as a monk. This seniority
of standing as a monk was expressed by the term 'paryaya'. Another expression denoting the senior monk was 'rainiya'. The commentator to the
Thanangasutta explains the term 'rainiya'
as ratnanee bhavto gyanadeeni tai
vyvahrati iti ratnik pryajyeshth iti' (p. 240a). Thus seniority seems to
have depended mostly on the scholarship and self-control or the proper
following of discipline. From this point of view, a monk of less standing was
designated as 'omarainiya', whereas
one with a greater standing or seniority was termed 'aharainiya'.
That there was a
clear-cut evaluation of and differentiation between age and standing is further
corroborated by the terms 'jai Thera'
and 'pariyaya there', the former
denoting a monk of the age of sixty and the latter a monk of twenty years'
standing in monk-hood. Besides these
two important categories, other Theras
are also referred to. These include the kula-thera,
Gana-Thera, samgha-thera and the
saya-thera. The first three were those who were in charge of the management
of either a kula or a Gana or a samgha,
while the suya-thera was one who was
well versed in the texts like the Samavayangasutta,
etc. (Than., p. 516a).
These texts by
themselves are silent about the qualifications and differentiation between
these categories of a Thera. However,
the commentaries explain the various categories and that too briefly. As the
case stands, therefore, we are not in a position to state the inter-relation
between these various types of Theras
nor are we certain about the nature of duties assigned to them. Whatever they
might have been, the juniors were asked to show complete regard to the Theras. (Samavayanga, p. 59ab).
The next officer was the
uvajhaya. His chief duty was to give
proper reading of the sutra to the junior monks. (Upetyadheeyte smadityupadhya Than.,
p. 140a). It is evident that such a person was expected to be well- versed in
sacred texts. However, no details regarding him, his qualifications and his
exact relative position in the hierarchy are to be found in older texts like
the Ayaranga and the Suyagadanga.
The ayariya-uvajjhaya is again a problematic designation and it is not
clear whether it denoted two officers or one. However on the basis of the five
privileges (aisesa) he enjoyed by
virtue of his qualifications and position, he seems to have been an important
officer in the church hierarchy. The very nature of these privileges was such
that he seems to have been a man of perfect self-control and a master of
monastic discipline. For instance, he was allowed to stay outside the monastery
or to live alone in it for a night or two; he might or might not wait upon
somebody; he could clean and wipe his feet in the monastery and lastly he could
ease nature in the monastery (Than., p. 329ab).
That these things were not allowed to any other junior officer speaks for the
high confidence placed in the self-control and integrity of the person of the ayariya- uvajjhaya.
The next important
officer of the church was the ayariya. The
qualifications expected of him were of academic and moral nature. For example,
he was to be a person endowed with jnana-
acara, darsana-acara, caritra acara, tapa-acara and viryo-acara; besides equanimity of mind, character and intellect.
As such he stood at the head of a group of monks and all those under him were
expected to show him utmost regard. Besides this, he enjoyed the same
privileges as the ayariya-uvajjhaya. Front
the details given in the Thanangasutta (PP.
239b, 240a) it seems that besides controlling and guiding a group of juniors
under him, the acarya was to initiate
and confirm (pavvayana and uvatthavana) a candidate.
The gani is yet another officer. He was a person who was endowed with
the eight-fold ganisampad. These make
him ideal in conduct, scholarship, physique, intellect, instructions, debate,
organization and monastic discipline. The sangrohasampad
expects him to be a person with all the knowledge pertaining to ideal
residence for younger monks,-rules of begging alms and requisites and the code
of perfect moral conduct and self-control (Than.,
p. 422b). From the qualifications and the nature of duties assigned to him,
the ganin may be equated with the acarya. This is also supported by the
commentary to the Thanangasutta.
Along with all these,
there is mentioned yet another officer termed as Ganavacchedaka. The information regarding his qualifications and
duties cannot be had in the Anga texts
at all. The only information that is given is that he was the head of the part
of a Gana or a group of monks (Than., p. 245a).
Further amplification
regarding the qualifications and the duties of these various officers can be
had only when we come to the Cheyasuttas.
In these texts, all these— and some more, — officers of the church are
mentioned. For instance, the Vavahara (X,
14), gives three categories of a Thera.
First, the jai Thera: He was so
called because he was sixty years old. The 'pariyaya
Thera' was one who had at least twenty years' standing as a monk. The 'suya Thera' was well versed in the Thananga and the Samavayanga suttas. Besides this, the same text gives details of
the privileges, which were enjoyed by the Thera.
For instance, very old monks or jai
Theras were allowed to take rest while others begged alms for them. Similar
concessions regarding the deposition of requisites were also allowed to them in
case they were unable to carry these. (Vav.
VIII, 5).
In the case of the uvajjhaya, besides the knowledge of the
scriptures, monastic etiquette and practice of self-control, the person had to
be such as had at least three years' standing (tivasapariyaya). However, a mere three years' standing was deemed
of no avail if the person was not well versed in ayarapakappa or the code of monastic conduct. Moreover, he was to
be a person who was smart and organizational enough to enroll new members to
the fold. His duties were mainly academic, though he had to look after the nuns
as well. (Vav. III, 3, 4,12).
The ayariya-uvajjhaya
had to be endowed with at least five years' standing along with the
knowledge of the suyak khandha and
dasa-kappa Vavahara i.e. the three texts of the Cheyasuttas.
As the qualifications
and the length of paryaya stand, this
officer seems to have been senior to the uvajjhaya.
With all these details, however, the exact nature of the duties of this
officer are not clearly set forth anywhere. As I have suggested in my 'History
of Jaina Monarchism from Inscriptions and Literature' (p. 220), this officer might be acting in a dual capacity, both as an uvajjhaya
and an ayariya when need arose due to the absence of any one of these.
Eight years' standing
and the knowledge of Thananga and Sasnavayanga were required of a person to designate him as a Ganavaccheiya, (Vav. III, 7). However,
no clear statement about his duties is available.
The qualifications
required of an ayariya were identical
with those in the case of the ayariya
uvejjhaya given above. Besides this, a
high standard of moral conduct
was expected of him (Vav. III, 7).
The acarya seemed to act as the supreme head of a group of monks. For
the juniors had to take permission
from him for all the important items of daily routine. Besides that he was one
of the supervisors of the nuns as well. (Vav.
III, 12).
The cheyasuttas refer to other officers like vayaga, (Kappa. IV, 5-6) and pavatti (Kappa. IV, 15) whereas the Ohanijutti mentions 'vasaha' (V, 125). The 'vacaka'
probably gave reading of texts to the junior monks. The 'pravartin' probably looked after the administrative routine of a group of monks, whereas the vrsabha, on
the basis of the commentary, seemed to be a
person looking after the ill and waiting upon them. Save in the case of vacaka, who was to be a person of manners, who avoided excitement and
atoned for every transgression, the qualifications of others are not to be
found.
Besides those mentioned
so far, the Brhathalpabhasya refers to abbiseka' and 'spardhakapati' (IV, 433;
III, 213236) In the case of the former, he was sometimes equated with the Upadhyaya (III, 2405,
2411) and sometimes deemed fit for acarya-hood
as well (IV, 4336). The spardhakapati,
as the designation stands, seems to have acted as the head of a phaddaa or a small sub-group in a gaccha
(laghutaro gacchadega eva: Ova. p. 86). The Ovavaiyasutta tells us that this group was headed by a Ganavacchedaka. Does
it mean, then, that the spardhakapati and
the Ganavacchedaka were
identical?
The foregoing discussion
proves that the officers of the church were persons of moral discipline and
academic and practical scholarship. These qualities were essential for those
who were the custodians of monastic discipline and its proper working among the
subordinates.
The Officers of the Nuns:
The organization of the nuns was done under
their own officers all of whom were subordinate to the officers of the monk
order. The acarya, the Upadhyaya and the pravartin were the protectors (aryikapratijagaraka)
of the orders of nuns. This subordination was so supreme and final that a
monk even of three years' standing could become the Upadhyaya of a nun of thirty years' standing and a monk of five
years' standing could become the Upadhyaya
of the nun with sixty years' standing, as laid down in Vavaharasutta (VII, 15, 16). This echoes faithfully the smashing
rule of the Cullavagga of the Buddhists which lays down that a nun of even a
hundred years' standing should bow down to a monk of recent entry to the order!
The final blow comes from the Digambaras
who hold that a woman, even when she becomes a nun, is not eligible for
liberation unless reborn as a man.
(Pravacanasara, III, 7).
This avowed inferiority
is reflected even in the administration and control of the order of nuns. For
the rule held that the nuns were not
to live at any time without the association of either an acarya or an Upadhyaya or
a pravartin. The last of these stood
at the lowest stage, subordinate both to the acarya and the Upadhyaya.
(Vav. III, 12).
The hierarchical list
amongst the nuns corresponded to that amongst the monks. Just as there, were
officers like the acarya, ganin,
pravartin, Ganavacchedaka, abbiseka and Thera,
the order of nuns had ganini,
pravartin, Ganavacchedini, abhiseka and theri.
The ganini was the highest officer in the cadre and headed the Gana or the group or unit of nuns. She
practically did the duties, which an acarya
did for his group. She was expected to be a person of high moral standard,
equanimous, energetic and fond of study, able to execute stern discipline and
having organizational drive (Gacchayara,
127-28). No details regarding her paryaya
or academic standard are available.
The next in the cadre
was the pravartin often referred to
in the Cheyasuttas. The exact
position of her in relation to other officers, is a matter of uncertainty,
However, a nun aspiring for this office was required to have a full knowledge
of the 'ayarapakappa' as also
organizational tact and command. In spite of this, she was never allowed to
stay alone (shiv. V, 1, 2, 9, 10). With the help of an acarya, whose duty it was to let her know the details about
transgressions which nuns were not to commit, the pravartin was the officer who was responsible for the moral
discipline of nuns under her care.
The Ganavacchedin~ was one who controlled a part of a Gana as her male counterpart the Ganavacchedaka did. No details regarding
her academic qualifications or administrative duties can be had.
Similar is the case of
the ahisega. The Brhatkalpabhasya (III, 2410, comm.) sometimes identifies her with
the ganini, whereas sometimes she is
taken to be fit to occupy the office of the pravartin
(IV, 4339, comm.).
The theri, though not clearly evaluated, possibly had the same
qualifications as the Thera. Since
these designations follow closely the pattern of the monk-order, it would not
be wrong to presume that the same categories like the jai-theri, pariyaya-theri; so on and so forth, were possibly
current.
The mahattariya mentioned in the Gacchayara
(V, 118) was possibly a nun who was respected due to her learning and moral
integrity. She is not mentioned in any of the earlier texts. As for her duties,
we have no information.
The khuddiya possibly denoted the nun confirmed. She is explained as 'bala' in the Brhatkalpa-bhasya (IV, 4339).
Digambaras Hierarchy:
The Digambaras texts like Mulacara,
Pravacanasara, and others do not differ much in giving the list of the
officers of the church hierarchy. They refer to sahu, Thera, uvajjhaya, airiya, Ganahara, suri and pavatta (Pry. III, 47-52; Mull 7, 10; 4, 195, etc.). The term indicative of a senior
monk is referred to in the Anagaradharmamrita
(8, 50) and is the same as 'ratnika'.
However, in none of the
texts referred to above further details regarding the academic qualifications
and the nature of duties of these officers can be had. It is more than likely
that the duties and nature of qualifications of these various officers was
probably the same for the Digambaras
and Svetambaras texts.
III
The
Problems of Seniority and Succession
Thus the main
qualifications of the officers of the Jaina church hierarchy consisted of moral
integrity and the knowledge and proper practice of the rules of monastic
conduct.
It would be wrong, however, to suppose that the
organizers of the church hierarchy were indifferent to other considerations.
This is evidenced by the several rules and regulations that guided the
considerations of seniority and succession. These considerations were essentially
important for the proper working of the monastic order as also to keep up the
morale of the juniors and the seniors. For if nepotism, and favoritism succeed
in an ill, or had entered in house holding again. But in order to have no
occasion for favoritism by which there was a chance of unfit persons stepping
into office, the rest of the monks were given supreme powers to ask the newly
appointed successor to quit office if they thought that he was unfit for the
post. If he relinquished the office, well and good; then he was not to undergo
any punishment.... But, if in spite of the request of the rest of the monks, he
persisted to hold on, then that person had to undergo cut in seniority or
isolation. Thus it may be said that the working of the Church was based on
purely democratic lines even in the modern sense of the term."
Similar rules guided the
seniority and succession in the order of nuns. As in the case of monks, the
nuns also had a right to ask the unfit nominee of a pravartin to withdraw from office (Vav. V, 13-14). The appointment to office after re-learning the
texts, expulsion and debarring due to offenses done while holding office and
holding allegiance to the nun of senior standing by the disciples of one of
less standing,— all these rules tally ad
verbatim with those in force for the monks.
IV
The
Units or Church Groups
The various officers and
juniors bound by these rules of academic and moral qualifications and the laws
of seniority and succession, resolved themselves in different groups which
conformed generally to the rules of monastic jurisprudence as a whole but were
guided by their own rules of internal working.
These
groups facilitated the supervision of the systematic working of monastic
discipline as also the development of solidarity and the furtherance of the
proper study of texts by a group.
To start with, these
groups served the purpose very well. But later on with an enormous growth in
the Gacchas, it seems to have
resulted in differentiation of
Monastic practices as also
a sort of isolationism, which are not good for the homogeneity of any church.
Be that as it may, the
early texts of the canoes refer to various units or formations of monks under a
senior.
The first and the
foremost was the Gana which is said
to have consisted of three kulas (Bhag.
coma., p. 382b). Some texts do not give this specific number but say that a
Gana is a group of kulas. On the other hand, the Brhatkalpa says that a Gana was formed of several sambhogas (IV, 18-20). The Digambaras text Miblacara explains the Gana
as a group of three monks (traipqlrusiko
Ganah, Mill. 10, 92; comm. p. 193).
Whatever it may be, the
formation of a Gana under a senior
officer took place for the express purpose of gaining higher knowledge or to
practice a more rigorous mode of discipline, etc. Thus considerations of purely
academic and monastic discipline seem to have led to the formation of a Gana (Than., p. 381a).
Nobody was allowed to
change his Gana often. This was taken
to be a major fault. However, the change of Gana
after some period was allowed for several reasons For instance, for the
obtainment of alms jointly With the members of the other Gana, and for the sake of making an advanced study of a particular
text known to those who belonged to another Gana,
a monk or an officer was allowed to change his Gana with the express permission of his senior and after laying
down office in the present Gana. (Sm,v.
39ab, 40b; Kalp. IV, 18-24, V, 5).
None was allowed to
change the Gana for avoiding
atonement for a fault. Similarly a person could be allowed entry into the Gana after his dismissal for a grave
offense, only if the other members expressed their confidence in him. So also
the change over from a Gana of
greater standing to that of a less standing was prohibited (N:s. 16. 15).
The next group was designated as the kula, which however has not been satisfactorily explained in any
text. However, it has already been seen that the kulas formed the Gana (Aup.,
com -. 81). The Bhagavai commentary
(p. 382b) explains it as 'egayariyassa
santai' (also Mull I, p. 143), or
the disciples of a particular acarya. This,
however, fails to explain the kula and
the rules of its formation and working. It is likely that a kula was headed by a junior officer and
a group of such hulas and their heads
were responsible to the acarya.
The sambhoga is yet another formation referred to in early texts. This has been variously explained as 'a group taking food together' (Utter. comm. p. 333a), or as a group having a common samacari and taking food together' (Patga